DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

Phil Hope: I have today published two consultation documents. The first of these covers our proposals for amending the building regulations energy efficiency provisions (part L) and implementing the energy performance of buildings directive (EPBD). The second describes our proposals for amending the guidance in approved document F that supports part F—ventilation of the building regulations. Both consultation documents contain draft regulatory impact assessments.
	Driving up the energy efficiency of our buildings is critical to our success in achieving the carbon emission reduction targets in the Energy White Paper and our energy efficiency action plan and will also contribute to our goals for developing more sustainable communities.
	Raising performance standards and introducing requirements for efficiency in the use of boilers and air conditioning systems will not only make a difference in the drive to tackle climate change, they will also help to create warmer, healthier homes and more comfortable and productive workplaces.
	The proposals for building energy performance certification requirements will enable prospective purchasers and tenants to be more aware of energy performance whenever buildings are constructed, sold or rented out.
	Energy used in buildings is responsible for roughly half the UK's carbon dioxide emissions. Wasting energy costs money whereas measures such as loft insulation, boiler replacements and more effective controls often pay for themselves within a few years.
	One of the cornerstones of saving energy is to make building structures more airtight to minimise heating or cooling energy losses due to air leaking through gaps in the structure. This is addressed in the amendments to part L. However, it is also essential to ensure there is sufficient controlled ventilation to maintain good indoor air quality to protect the health of the building occupants. This is one of the roles of part F, and is why approved document F has been revised in conjunction with part L.
	The guidance on ventilation systems has been expanded to cover more options, and also changed from a prescriptive to a performance-based approach that should encourage innovation.
	A new section in the proposed guidance deals with the design of smoking rooms in workplaces. The new edition of the approved document will also take into account the commitments made in the public health White Paper to be published later this year.
	The consultation documents will be sent to several hundred organisations that have an interest in the energy efficiency of buildings and/or ventilation. Paper copies have also been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the text can be downloaded from the ODPM website.
	The consultation period for both sets of proposals closes on Friday 22 October 2004. Following this my officials will work with the Building Regulations Advisory Committee to consider how the proposals might need to be modified to take account of the opinions expressed in the consultations, and (for part F) the commitments that may be made in the public health White Paper. I am aiming, however, to lay the legislation needed to implement the directive and amend the building regulations and approved documents by July next year, and to achieve our goal of bringing them into effect by the end of December 2005.

Local Government Finance Settlement 2005–06

Nick Raynsford: Together with representatives of local government and other Government Departments, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has reviewed the prospect for incorporating 2001 census data in the formula calculations used to distribute formula grant to local authorities. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has concluded that we should postpone the introduction of 2001 census data in the calculation of the local government finance settlement until the formula freeze is lifted, in 2006–07 at the earliest.
	The 2001 White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", (CM5237), announced that the funding formula would be frozen for at least 2004–05 and 2005–06. Our aim is to provide local government with predictable and stable funding, so that they can plan their finances and their service provision from year to year.
	It is clear that using 2001 census data to calculate the local government finance settlement will require formula changes, and will cause some large changes to the distribution of formula spending shares.
	In deciding not to update the census data used in the funding formulae in 2005–06, we have balanced our aim of using the most up to date data to calculate local government grants against our commitment to the formula freeze and to stability and predictability in local government funding.
	The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will work with local government to produce options to include the 2001 census data in the funding formula once the present formula freeze is lifted.

Revaluation, Transitional Rates Relief and Small Business Rates Relief

Nick Raynsford: This statement provides initial information about the impact of the business rates revaluation that will take effect from 1 April 2005, gives details of the proposed transitional relief scheme and sets out the Government's proposals for the small business rate relief scheme which also takes effect from 1 April 2005.
	Table 1 below shows the overall effect of revaluation as a percentage change in rateable values and on rate bills.
	
		Table 1: Overall effect of Revaluation for England andby Region including Central List—2005
		
			 Economic Region Average % change inRV from the 2000rating lists to the2005 rating lists Average % change inliability as a result ofrevaluation beforereliefs are applied 
		
		
			 East 20.5 1.1 
			 East Midlands 15.9 -2.8 
			 London 17.1 -0.8 
			 North East 15.0 -3.4 
			 North West 14.9 -3.5 
			 South East 20.2 0.7 
			 South West 19.9 0.4 
			 West Midlands 13.6 -4.5 
			 Yorkshire and Humberside 13.1 -5.3 
			 Central list 32.9 10.5 
			 Total 17.9 — 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. The regional figures are based on the data in local lists of properties for each relevant billing authority. The Central List includes various utilities and networks that are not specific to a billing authority area. Central List properties pay their rates direct to the Secretary of State and the revenue is added to the NNDR revenue pool.
	2. The third column simply deals with the effect of revaluation. In addition to this the final liability will be uprated to take account of the annual inflation increase.
	Table 2 shows the movement in rateable values as a result of the 2005 revaluation by economic region and key property types—offices, shops, warehouses and factories.
	
		Table 2: Movement in Rateable Values—By Region and Property Types
		
			  Main Property Types 
			  Offices Shops Warehouses Factories 
			 Region RVChange LiabilityAverage RVChange LiabilityAverage RVChange LiabilityAverage RVChange LiabilityAverage 
		
		
			 East 16% -2.6% 27% 7.3% 23% 3.3% 19% 0.4% 
			 East Midlands 18% -1.4% 23% 3.6% 15% -3.2% 12% -6.0% 
			 London 11% -5.4% 26% 7.1% 23% 2.8% 22% 3.0% 
			 North East 24% 2.2% 24% 4.8% 13% -4.8% 13% -5.6% 
			 North West 18% -0.5% 22% 3.0% 11% -6.4% 10% -7.3% 
			 South East 8% -9.0% 29% 8.4% 29% 8.8% 23% 3.4% 
			 South West 21% 1.6% 27% 6.3% 16% -2.3% 14% -4.8% 
			 West Midlands 15% -3.8% 20% 0.7% 11% -6.6% 6% -11% 
			 Yorkshire and Humberside 14% -3.9% 26% 6.0% 12% -5.7% 9% -8.3% 
			 England 13% -4.7% 25% 5.7% 18% -0.5% 14% -4.2% 
		
	
	Notes:
	1. "RV change" reflect the average percentage increase in rateable value from the 2000 rating lists to the 2005 rating lists.
	2. "Liability average" is the average change in liability as a result of revaluation before reliefs are applied.
	Although the tables show an overall national increase in rateable values, this does not mean an increase in the overall tax take, or that rate bills will necessarily rise by the same amount. The purpose of revaluations is to distribute tax in a more equitable way by updating the valuation of property, thereby making the tax base more current and relevant. The tables therefore also show the likely effect of revaluation on rates bills.
	This information provides important indicators of national trends. However, it is not necessarily a good predictor of changes in an individual's rates bill since these will be affected by more local differences and by factors that are specific to the individual property. Nevertheless, in England as a whole, nearly 60 per cent. of properties will see a fall in their rateable values and therefore a fall in their rate liability.
	The Valuation Office Agency is finalising the preparation of the draft rating lists that will be published on 1 October. These are being published three months earlier than usual and will contain more comprehensive information than ever before. This will enable ratepayers to plan ahead with much greater certainty and should also reduce the number of appeals.
	The Local Government Act 2003 provides that the 2005 revaluation must be accompanied by a transition scheme to lessen the effects of sudden and significant rises in rates bills. The legislation provides that the scheme must be self-financing, so that the costs do not fall on other taxpayers. For revaluation 2005, we are proposing a four-year self-financing transitional scheme. The costs of phasing in increases will be met by phasing down the reductions in liability for others.
	The scheme seeks to provide an appropriate balance between protecting those who experience larger increases in rates bills and allowing those who enjoy a fall in bills to experience the full benefit as quickly as possible. As a result we propose the caps for properties experiencing increases will be 12.5 per cent., 17.5 per cent., 20 per cent. and 25 per cent. for the four years and for small properties 5 per cent., 7.5 per cent., 10 per cent. and 20 per cent.
	For large properties experiencing reductions in rate bills, these would be capped at the rates of 7 per cent., 10 per cent., 17.5 per cent. and 20 per cent. For small properties, the rates proposed are 17.5 per cent., 25 per cent, 45 per cent. and 50 per cent. These downward caps are significantly more generous than in any previous transitional scheme and mean that those liable to decreases in their rates bills will benefit more quickly than under earlier schemes. Also, the effect of the separate capping levels means that small businesses will only be required to make a very small contribution to the scheme.
	Further details of the transitional scheme will be included in a consultation paper to be published shortly. The consultation will continue until October, by which time businesses will know their proposed rateable value from the valuation office agency draft rating lists. This will enable ratepayers to consider the effect of the proposed scheme alongside their proposed new rateable values before responding to the consultation.
	I am also announcing our proposals for the new small business rate relief scheme. Government recognise that the current system of business rates places a disproportionate burden on small businesses. The small business rate relief scheme will address that.
	Plans for a small business rate relief scheme were first announced in 2001 in the White Paper "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services". The White Paper proposed that rate relief should be available at 50 per cent. for properties with a rateable value up to £3,000 with relief declining in percentage terms on a sliding scale until at £8,000 there would be no entitlement to relief. However, we undertook to review these thresholds before the scheme was implemented. The scheme that we will be consulting on next month is significantly more generous than the one originally envisaged, and proposes that the thresholds should be set at £5,000 and £10,000. We are also introducing a buffer zone so that business properties with rateable values between £10,000 and £15,000 will not have to contribute towards the relief.
	The scheme will be funded through a supplement on the rates bills of larger businesses, in line with the requirement in the Local Government Act 2003, although we have made a commitment that this should not add more than 2.5 per cent. to bills. The proposed scheme would increase the overall supplement to no more than 0.67p. This equates to a 1.6 per cent. increase in rates bills.
	We estimate that more than 400,000 small businesses stand to benefit from the proposed scheme.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities

Margaret Hodge: This statement is being made on a joint basis, together with my noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Minister for Women and Equality.
	I am pleased to report that consultation document "Parental Separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities" (Cm 6273) is today being presented to Parliament.
	Parental separation affects many children and their families. When handled well the adverse impact on their children can be minimised. When things go badly the effects can be very damaging for children, both in the short and longer terms. These risks can be reduced if parents can resolve parenting issues in an amicable fashion. Because of social changes, more children experience parental relationship breakdown than a generation ago: 150,000 to 200,000 parental couples separate each year. In addition, fathers are, in general, more actively involved in caring for and helping to raise their children.
	Currently, only 10 per cent. of separating couples with children have had their contact arrangements ordered by the courts, though the number of court applications for contact is rising each year, with the courts in England and Wales making 67,000 contact orders last year. The majority of applications are made by fathers, reflecting the fact that most children live with their mothers following separation.
	I am clear that there is scope for considerable improvement in the way in which the family justice system, together with its associated services, deal with contact disputes. This view is widely shared among judges, legal practitioners and voluntary organisations. Some fathers' groups assert that the courts and the law are biased against them. I do not accept this view. However, what I do accept is that major changes are needed, in order to ensure that court and other interventions into family life become much more effective in helping to secure effective resolutions which are in the interests of the child. I strongly believe that in most cases it is very much in the interests of the child to have an on-going relationship with both parents. By improving the system, the Government can make their proper contribution to enabling more non-resident parents to enjoy meaningful ongoing relationships with their children.
	Following the most careful consideration across Government, we have determined that it would not be helpful, in any practical sense, to revise the principles that currently underpin the central piece of legislation—the Children Act 1989, in particular, the paramountcy principle, which makes the child's welfare the court's first consideration. This primary legislation, as interpreted and defined by the case law, already makes clear that both parents are equal and that both should continue to have a meaningful relationship with their children after parental separation, so long as it is safe. We fully accept that we need to make changes to the current system, and to support parents in settling their disputes, by providing more effective help for them to do so.
	This consultation document puts forward proposals which are intended to help those undergoing parental separation to resolve their disputes more effectively so that children's needs are better met. They are based on the recognition that the primary responsibility for caring for children rests with parents rather than with the state. Their aims are threefold. Firstly, they aim to minimise conflict and support good outcomes, both for children and their parents, preferably without recourse to the courts. Secondly, they aim to improve parental access to those services which can enable them to reach agreements. Thirdly, they aim to improve legal processes and service delivery for those who do go to court. While most of our proposals are focused on the 10 per cent. of parents who turn to the courts, a number of them are intended to be relevant to all parents who separate.
	In developing these proposals, we have listened carefully to what parents and children have said. The consumer Strategy work of the Department for Constitutional Affairs involved drawing together evidence from research and conducting workshops and focus groups with parents. The key message from the parents was that they wanted help and support to navigate the emotional and practical issues they faced during the breakdown of their relationship.
	We have also consulted widely with the key stakeholders, including parents' groups, academics, voluntary organisations and service providers, including the judiciary, legal professionals and the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (CAFCASS). It is this approach that will ensure rapid improvements at local level. Alongside the publication of this consultation document, the president of the Family Division and the chief executives of the court service and of CAFCASS are today writing to all judges, court service staff and CAFCASS officers to begin the process of change.
	The consultation period, which begins today, will run until 1 November 2004. Comments and discussions about the proposals will be welcome. The Government plan to implement many of these proposals quickly and robustly and to pursue the legislation that is needed as soon as possible.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

"I Will Write" Replies

Peter Hain: The Speaker has raised with me his concern, and that of other Members, about the number of "I will write" replies to parliamentary questions, and the inaccessibility of the subsequent responses. The matter was also raised by the Public Administration Committee in its report on "Ministerial Accountability and Parliamentary Questions" [Third Report, HC355, paragraph 29].
	Following discussion with ministerial colleagues, and in consultation with Mr. Speaker and the House authorities, I have agreed the following arrangements, which will take effect from September.
	Government Departments will continue to make every effort to provide a substantive answer to every parliamentary question within the customary timescale.
	Departments will give "I will write" answers only rarely, when there is particular reason for delay.
	At the end of each session, Departments will make every effort to answer questions substantively before prorogation; but, if this is not possible, Ministers will—instead of issuing an "I will write" reply, as in the past—answer the question with the following form of words: "It has not proved possible to respond to the [Right] hon. Member in the time available before Prorogation". It will then be open to the Member concerned to re-table the question in the new session if he or she wishes.
	On those occasions where an "I will write" answer is necessary, a copy of the subsequent substantive response will be sent to Hansard and to the Library, and will be printed with the written answers in the next edition of Hansard.
	If the subsequent response is longer than Hansard would normally publish, notification will be printed that the response is available in the Library of the House. The response will be available to Members in the Library and to the public on application to the House of Commons information office.
	If Ministers wish to provide, in response to a question, personal or confidential information that would not be appropriate for publication, this will be made clear in the answer. The "I will write" formula will not be used and copies will not be sent to Hansard or the Library.
	I believe that these new arrangements will substantially reduce the number of "I will write" replies, and make the subsequent responses much more accessible both to other Members and to the public.

Public Bills: Exchanges Between the Houses

Peter Hain: During the final stages of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill in May, a procedural difficulty arose in the House of Lords. Contrary to the intention of this House, it appeared to the House of Lords that a message from the Commons amounted to a "double insistence" in respect of one Lords amendment. In such circumstances, a Bill is normally lost. However, as this was clearly not the wish of either House, the House of Lords agreed to vary the normal practice in that House, to allow the Bill to continue in play.
	The Leader of the House of Lords invited the Clerks of both Houses and parliamentary counsel to consider jointly the lessons learnt from this episode and how best to avoid such a situation in the future. In particular, they were asked to look at the practice of considering amendments in the other House in groups or packages and the procedural consequences which can follow.
	Following consideration by a working group of Clerks and parliamentary counsel, the Clerks of both Houses have agreed the following statement of position:
	"Before a bill can become an Act of Parliament, the two Houses have to agree on the text. The procedure for reaching agreement appears simple in concept, but can become extremely complicated in practice because of the political context. It may involve, for example, one House having to back away from an entrenched position.
	Following Third Reading and passing of the bill in the second House, a list of amendments made by that House is compiled and sent back to the first House for their consideration. If the first House agrees to all of the amendments made in the second House, the bill is ready for Royal Assent. If it does not, it returns the bill to the second House, with reasons for disagreeing to the amendments, and/or with further amendments. The second House then considers the reasons and amendments offered by the first House. The exchanges between the two Houses continue until:
	(a) agreement is reached, or
	(b) the Session is brought to an end, without agreement having been reached, or
	(c) 'double insistence' is reached, which normally results in the bill being lost.
	The term double insistence is used to describe a situation where one House insists on an amendment to which the other has disagreed, and the other House insists on its disagreement. If this point is reached, and neither House has offered alternatives, the bill is lost. This doctrine is set out in Erskine May 23 edition, page 639, which, however, goes on to say 'there is no binding rule of order which governs these proceedings in either House, and, if there is a desire to save
	the bill, some variation in the proceedings may be devised in order to effect this object.'
	In the case of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, two amendments (Lords amendments 1 and 3) were still under discussion in the final exchanges between the two Houses. In the Commons, the two amendments were treated as forming a package, and a single amendment (1C) was considered by the Commons to be an amendment in lieu of both Lords amendments. But the reason given for disagreeing to Lords amendment 3 made no mention of the link between amendment 1 and amendment 3. Accordingly, the Lords Clerks advised that double insistence had been reached on amendment 3, and they advised the Government that it would be necessary to move a motion to vary the normal practice of the House, and thus allow further consideration of the bill. A motion was agreed to on 11 May.
	We have been asked to consider the lessons which can be learnt from these exchanges.
	By way of background, we note that the speed and complexity of exchanges between the two Houses has increased markedly in recent years. This is due partly to political circumstances, and partly to technical advances in text handling, which have made possible extremely rapid turn-around of bills. Increased speed inevitably carries the risk of misunderstanding or error, and reduces the time available for consideration of the possible consequences of each House's decisions.
	Particularly in the Commons, the practice has developed of packaging and grouping amendments during these final stages. 1 Packaging and grouping are useful ways of signalling perceived connections between amendments. But these are techniques for organising debate within each House; neither House can be expected either to discover, or to feel bound to follow, arrangements made by the other for the consideration of amendments. Messages between the two Houses, and reasons for disagreement, are ways of communicating perceived connections between amendments, but these in turn depend upon the terms of the motions in each House. We consider that the wording of motions could be improved, in order to make clearer the links between the different elements of a 'package' of amendments. We also think that the wording should be improved, in order to make the action of one House clearer to the other and, where necessary, to identify any package.
	As an example, in a case where one House insists on disagreement to more than one amendment and offers an alternative only to one, intending that single alternative to encourage the other House to reconsider all the relevant amendments, the most certain way of avoiding the need in future for a motion disapplying the double insistence rule will be to ensure that a single motion to disagree is laid before the House along the lines of 'that this House insists on its disagreement to amendments 1, 2 and 3 but proposes the following amendment in lieu of amendment 1'. The other House will then be able to identify the group of amendments as a package.
	We are in agreement that in such a case the resultant message to the other House would not amount to a double insistence, whether or not the House receiving it chose to 'unpackage' the amendments for the purposes of debate.
	1 In this note, 'grouping' refers to the practice (in both Houses) whereby related amendments are debated together, but the fate of individual amendments in the group is decided separately. 'Packaging' refers to the practice (currently only used in the House of Commons), in the final stages of a bill's passage, where a number of related amendments may be grouped together for the purposes of both debate and decision. So, for example, a motion on a "package" might invite the House to agree to amendments (a), (b) and (c) to a Bill, in lieu of Lords amendments 42 to 44 and 61.
	From a practical point of view, we consider that the packaging of amendments has advantages, and that there could be benefits from bringing the practices of the two Houses more closely together in this respect. With this in mind, the Clerk of the Parliaments will invite the Lords Procedure Committee to consider changes to the practice of the House, to allow more flexibility in dealing with Commons amendments which have been packaged.
	Although, in many cases, it is likely that the two Houses will be prepared to consider as a whole a package of amendments which has been received from the other House, there will be other cases when either House may wish to consider the elements of a package separately for political reasons. It is not the purpose of procedure to provide political solutions, but rather to facilitate the consideration of options. Each House remains the master of its own procedures, and where there is disagreement about packaging, it will be possible, as at present, for the other House to consider amendments separately to the extent desired."

ENVIRONMENT FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000

Ben Bradshaw: The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has signed a written agreement with the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, to allow them to perform the functions of an approved prosecutor under Section 1 (3) (e) of the Protection of Animals (Amendment) Act 2000. This Act supplements the Protection of Animals Act 1911, by allowing a magistrates court to make an order relating to the temporary care or for the disposal, sale or slaughter of animals kept for commercial purposes that are the subject of a prosecution brought under the 1911 Act by a prosecutor. The agreement with the RSPCA will take effect from 1 September 2004 and will apply to England only. Copies of the model agreement have been deposited in the Libraries. The model agreement and associated guidance notes can also be found on Defra's website at: www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/welfare/farmed/on-farm/.htm.

Future of Nirex

Margaret Beckett: In my statement of 16 July 2003, I announced that Government was looking at the best way of making Nirex "independent of industry and under greater Government control". I would now like to make a further statement, concerning the means of moving forward with this, that I have agreed with my Right Hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
	The Government, through DEFRA and DTI, intend to establish a new company limited by guarantee (CLG) to hold the shares in Nirex, and oversee its business operations. The transfer of Nirex shares to the new CLG will be covered by an appropriate commercial transaction with existing Nirex shareholders. The CLG will, effectively, provide a means of placing Nirex assets and intellectual property into trust, whilst enabling it to continue with its important work that includes setting standards for the conditioning and packaging of radioactive waste, until the Government can take their decision on policy for the long-term management of the UK's higher activity radioactive waste, and the means of its delivery, in light of recommendations from the independent Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). The funding will be by contract, primarily through the NDA. Nirex will be separate from, and independent of, the NDA.
	The new arrangements will achieve both the objectives stated in my previous announcement, to make Nirex independent of industry and bring the company under greater Government control. The aim is to agree the detail of them by about October/November of this year for them to come fully into operation from 1 April 2005.
	Successful implementation is subject to a significant amount of more detailed work currently being undertaken by DEFRA and the DTI in conjunction with Nirex and its present shareholders, including an ongoing programme of due diligence work. All parties are committed to achieving a successful outcome to this process.

Home Energy Conservation Act Data

Elliot Morley: Data reported by energy conservation authorities in England under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 in the period 1 April 1996 to 31 March 2003 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. These data have also been published on the Department for Food and Rural Affairs' website, at address http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/energy/heca95/index.htm.
	Authorities have reported an overall improvement in domestic energy efficiency of approximately 12 per cent. as measured against a 1996 baseline.

NORTHERN IRELAND

Gender Equality Strategy Consultation

Paul Murphy: I wish to advise the House that on 14 August 2004, I will announce a public consultation exercise in respect of a proposed gender equality strategy, the Government's high level policy for tackling gender inequalities in Northern Ireland.
	This consultation follows our fulfilment of a commitment given by the previous Northern Ireland executive, in its programme for Government (2001–04) to bringing forward and implementing a cross-departmental strategy to tackle gender inequalities.
	Copies of the Consultation Paper "Gender Matters—Towards a Cross Departmental Strategic Framework to Promote Gender Equality For Women And Men 2005–15" have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Insolvency Service Annual Report and Account (Year Ending 31 March 2003)

Barry Gardiner: In accordance with Articles 372 and 358(4) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 copies of the Insolvency Service Annual Report and Account for year ending 31 March 2003 have been placed in both Libraries of the House today.

Invest Northern Ireland (Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03)

Barry Gardiner: The annual report and accounts of Invest Northern Ireland for the financial year ending 31 March 2003 were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Youth Council

Paul Murphy: The 2001–02 accounts of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland were deposited in the Libraries of both Houses on 21 July 2004.

Ordnance Survey (Corporate Plan 2004–07 and Business Plan 2004–05)

Angela Smith: I have today arranged for the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland corporate plan 2004–07 and business plan 2004–05 document to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. This document will also be made available on the Ordnance Survey of Northern Ireland website at: www.osni.gov.uk.

North/South Implementation Bodies— Tourism Ireland Ltd

Paul Murphy: I have today placed in the Library papers relating to decisions that have been taken during the period 1 October 2003 to 5 July 2004 which relate to the North/South Implementation Bodies and Tourism Ireland Ltd under the terms of the exchange of notes of 19 November 2002 (Cmnd 5708).

HOME DEPARTMENT

Visually Recorded Pre-trial Cross-examination

Paul Goggins: The Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (the 1999 Act) contained, among other provisions, eight special measures for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. They are essentially different ways of giving evidence in criminal trials that were designed either to improve the quality of evidence given by witnesses through reducing their levels of stress or to make it possible for witnesses who find difficulty in giving their evidence to have access to justice.
	This Government have already implemented, or is piloting, seven of the eight measures. The eighth measure—visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination—was always going to be the most complicated of the measures to implement. It was also always likely to be applied to the smallest number of cases.
	A number of stakeholders have expressed their concerns to us about the detail of its implementation. We therefore commissioned Professor Diane Birch, a leading academic in the field, to review and provide advice on the workability of visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination. A copy of Professor Birch's report has been laid in the Library today.
	The report concludes that one of the two main reasons for undertaking visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination—that of capturing all the witness's evidence early in the pre-trial process—is no longer valid. That is because of new rules on disclosure that effectively mean that by the time both counsel are in a position to undertake visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination, they will be ready to go ahead with the trial itself.
	The second reason—keeping the witness out of court altogether—is still valid. However, the report concludes that rather than introduce the cumbersome mechanism of visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination many months after having visually recorded evidence-in-chief, it would be far more sensible to return to the original recommendation in the report of the advisory group on video evidence (1989) chaired by his Honour Judge Thomas Pigot QC. This was that the child should appear at an informal hearing, at which both the child's evidence-in-chief (supplemented, where there was one, by an earlier video recorded interview) and the cross-examination would be recorded on video for subsequent transmission to the court.
	The report recommends that section 28 of the 1999 Act that provides for visually recorded pre-trial cross-examination should be revisited. It recommends also that the operation of section 21 of the same Act should be reviewed. Section 21 provides that under-17 year olds who are witnesses in cases of sex or violence are given no choice in having certain special measures—such as visually recorded evidence-in-chief or live TV links—applied to them, whether they wish for them or not. So a 16½ year old who has witnessed any sort of violent crime, even where he was not himself involved, would be forced to give evidence in this way.
	The Government are disappointed not to be implementing one of the eight special measures for vulnerable or intimidated witnesses that we provided for in good faith five years ago. But we believe it is better to take the advice of one of the leading experts in the field and many senior practitioners, and revisit this complex issue. Our aim is to achieve genuine improvements to the way in which vulnerable and intimidated witnesses give their evidence, and this will not be achieved by ploughing on doggedly with implementation of provisions which informed advice suggests will not be practicable or yield the benefits originally envisaged.
	We have therefore decided that in the autumn we shall embark upon a wider review of how child evidence is taken and presented in the criminal courts, particularly in cases involving sex or violence, with the aim of delivering the greater flexibility recommended in Professor Birch's report. This will assist in our aim of enabling measures to be more tailored to the individual witness's needs.
	We are also ensuring that everything that can be done to improve the experience of those witnesses who might have benefited from the implementation of section 28 is being done. The "No Witness No Justice" project will ensure that children's needs are assessed and met, so that, for example, pre-trial court visits are arranged; access to a range of emotional support and guidance through appropriate groups is offered; where possible home visits take place; and parents are provided with a single point of contact to access information and advice throughout the case. We will continue to improve court buildings so that encounters between the defendant and the child witness are minimised, for example through providing more TV live links. We will also continue to work with the judiciary and the bar to ensure that children's needs and wishes are recognised by the courts.

Public and Contracted Prisons

Paul Goggins: In my written statement on 15 July announcing publication of the Prison Service and national probation service annual reports for 2003–04, I stated that a full breakdown of the performance of both public and contracted prison establishments in relation to the applicable key performance indicators (KPIs) would be provided at a later date.
	The information on all applicable KPIs is presented in the table that has been placed in the Library. No category A prisoners escaped from any prison and so performance on this KPI is not included in the table. Information is not available at establishment level on the resettlement KPI (which is calculated on the basis of a national resettlement survey), and on the two KPIs on contracted escorts (escapes and timely arrival at court) which are not managed at establishment level. The contracted prisons do not have targets on staff sickness levels or minority ethnic representation. Due to data collection problems there are no figures available for doubling in contracted prisons.

Forensic Science Service Annual Report and Accounts 2003–04

Caroline Flint: I have today laid before Parliament copies of the Forensic Science Service's (FSS) annual report and accounts for 2003–04.
	Performance against agency targets 2003–04:
	The FSS met 20 of its 22 targets and put in a robust financial performance. Of the two targets not achieved, one was missed narrowly and the other became unachievable through circumstances outside of the agency's control. Details are contained in the annual report.
	The Forensic Science Service agency targets for 2004–05 are as follows:
	Finance:
	Target 1
	Three year rolling average of 15 per cent. minimum return on capital employed.
	Target 2
	75 per cent. reduction in charges versus the average earnings index.
	Target 3
	Increase investment in development by a minimum of 12 per cent. of turnover.
	Target 4
	Secure £1.25 million of external funding for research and development.
	Non-Finance:
	Target 1
	Embed the internal FSS end to end process.
	Target 2
	Implement the new definitions of timeliness (NDoT) based on investigative and evidential contributions of forensic science for 100 per cent. of forces.
	Target 3
	Make available to 100 per cent. of forces the process of end to end case ownership.
	Target 4
	Sign up 100 per cent. of customers (police and CPS) at force level to service agreements (timelines and charging) in context of national protocol.
	Target 5
	Allocation of 100 per cent. of cases to a dedicated FSS case officer.
	Target 6
	Roll out training packages for police and CPS to support new ways of working.
	Target 7
	Design and develop a link between NDNAD and NAFIS (carried forward from last year).
	Target 8
	Maintain a capacity to deliver fast track processing of DNA samples within 48 hours.
	Target 9
	Deliver 15 per cent. of DNA samples (subject to demand) within 48 hours (fast track processing).
	Target 10
	Average time of seven days to analyse and inform customers of DNA crime scene stain results (normal track).
	Target 11
	95 per cent. of DNA crime scene stain results (see above) will have a turn round time of 12 days.
	Target 12
	Average time of five days to analyse and inform customers of DNA suspect sample results on database (normal track cases).
	Target 13
	95 per cent of DNA suspect sample results (see above) will have a turn round time of eight days.
	Target 14
	Increase forensic effectiveness by fully implementing the index and benchmark system.
	Target 15
	95 per cent of jobs (excluding road traffic accidents and alcohols) will have a turn round time of 35 days.
	Target 16
	Maintain ISO Accreditation.
	Target 17
	Maintain Investors in People accreditation.
	Target 18
	Maintain diversity programme.

Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre

Des Browne: On the evening of 19 July there was a serious disturbance at Harmondsworth immigration removal centre.
	At about 8 pm staff found a detainee hanging in a shower-room at the centre. At about 11 pm a number of detainees became disruptive and started to set a number of fires in the communal areas. These fires were put out by the newly installed fire protection system. The police and fire services were called to the scene.
	The disturbance continued and became more serious. Staff from UKDS, the company managing the centre under contract from the Home Office, withdrew from the association areas. Standing arrangements in the Prison Service for dealing with serious incidents were activated, and by midnight the Gold Command Suite at Prison Service headquarters was in operation. By 4 am on 20 July the Prison Service Operation Tornado teams went into the centre. By 8 am three of the four house blocks were under Prison Service control. The fourth came under control a little later in the morning, and by 2 pm all parts of the centre were calm.
	The Centre is, for the time being, unsuitable for use. The 441 detainees who were there at the time of the disturbance are being removed to other accommodation, and we are in the final stages of dispersing them across a range of sites, including the IND removal estate and prison establishments while a small number have been taken into police custody. No detainees have been released. An assessment of the damage is being made with UKDS, and the centre will be reopened as quickly as possible. In the meantime, alternative arrangements are being made for the handling in particular of those detainees whose asylum claims were being dealt with under the fast track.
	This was a serious disturbance, and I pay tribute to all those who responded quickly and succeeded in restoring order. It is important to note that the disturbance did not lead to loss of life or serious injury. No detainees escaped, and the measures which had been taken to prevent a recurrence of the fire at Yarl's Wood Centre proved successful. We are determined that the centre be restored to full use as soon as possible.
	The tragic death of the detainee earlier in the evening of 19 July will be the subject of a full investigation by the Prison and Probation Ombudsman. The police are conducting a criminal investigation into the events themselves. There are also likely to be managerial lessons to be learned and I have instigated an immediate investigation, the terms of reference of which will be: to establish the facts of the events at Harmondsworth on the evening of 19 July and the morning of 20 July; to consider the factors which may have given rise to the disturbance and the effectiveness of the measures which were taken to deal with it; and to make recommendations.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

Court Services

Christopher Leslie: The MCSI inspection of courts services annual report for 2003–04 has been laid before Parliament today. This document gives full details of the MCSI's performance for that year. Copies of the report have been place in the Libraries of both Houses.

DEFENCE

Project ISOLUS

Adam Ingram: On 4 February 2004 I informed the House of Commons that Ministry of Defence owned coastal sites were being considered for their suitability to store radioactive material from nuclear-powered submarines under Project ISOLUS. That exercise is now complete and one site, the royal armaments depot (RNAD) at Coulport in Dumbartonshire, has been found suitable in principle. One of the industry bidders, Serco Assurance, in partnership with Parsons Brinckerhoff Ltd. and RWE Nukem Ltd., is seeking to use a MOD site in their proposal and they will now be asked if they wish to incorporate Coulport into their bid, as will the other bidders.
	I want to make it clear that this does not mean that Coulport has been selected as the storage location—there is still much work to be done before a final decision is made. Nor does it mean that industry has to incorporate the site in any bid. It does, however, mean that those other coastal sites included in the review, some of which have been the subject of considerable speculation, have been assessed as unsuitable and are not storage options.
	Coulport has, of course, previously been named in an industry bid, and is one of the sites on which we consulted the public last year. I do not envisage setting in train further consultation at this stage. If, however, any of the proposals from industry change in substance as a result of the inclusion of Coulport we will instigate a further public consultation exercise. As at all stages of the ISOLUS process, safety, in terms of the general public, the workforce and the environment, will be a key factor in all of our decisions. The concerns expressed by the public during the events at the various sites named in each of the industry bids have been captured by the 50 recommendations contained in the Lancaster University report on the consultation exercise. These recommendations are currently being considered and, following consultation with other government departments and devolved administrations, a Government response will be published later this year.
	The exercise to identify potential MOD sites has concentrated on those by the coast in view of the current preferred option of land storage of cut out intact reactor compartments. The 118 sites were assessed against the following criteria: sufficient spare capacity to accommodate a storage facility; long term security of tenure; development of a storage facility that is feasible and cost effective, would not breach existing agreements with MOD, NATO or other countries, and would not inhibit the site's current principal operational function; access from the sea, capable of accepting heavy loads; and no safety hazard, such as flooding, coastal erosion and whether the site is used for handling and storing explosives, or where unexploded ordnance has been identified, for which there is no cost effective engineering solution.
	In parallel with the detailed consideration of the outcome of the public consultation, and informed by the recommendations flowing from it, evaluation of the various industry outline proposals will be completed. We expect to be able to announce early next year how the project will be taken forward. Moreover, the Government remains committed to a further round of public consultation before any final decisions are taken.

Military Low Flying Annual Report

Ivor Caplin: The amount of low flying training carried out in the UK low flying system (UKLFS) during the training year April 2003 to March 2004 was the minimum required for aircrew to reach and maintain their ability to fly at low level. The number of low flying training hours booked in the UKLFS (excluding the rotary wing dedicated user areas, where different booking arrangements apply) decreased by 1,996 hours, in comparison with the previous training year.
	We are committed to ensuring that low flying training across the UK is spread as widely as is practically possible across the UK so that no single area is too burdened. However, due to a variety of reasons, population distribution and geographical and climate restrictions, it is unavoidable that some areas of the country may experience more activity than others.
	I have today placed in the Library of the House a report giving a detailed account of the low flying training that has taken place in the UK low flying system for the training year April 2003 to March 2004.
	The report is also available on the MOD web site: www.mod.uk/issues/lowflying.

Quick Reaction Alert

Adam Ingram: On 23 April 2004, Official Report, columns 30–31WS, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced that Typhoon aircraft would be based at RAF Coningsby, RAF Leeming and RAF Leuchars. I have now decided that RAF Leuchars will be the second Typhoon base after RAF Coningsby. This is in order to meet the requirement for quick reaction alert (interceptor) aircraft cover for the UK. RAF Coningsby and RAF Leuchars are already established as bases for this purpose, which will continue after Typhoon is introduced.

Woolwich Station

Ivor Caplin: A review has been undertaken of the defence requirement for the retention of Woolwich station. The review took account of our future ground based air defence requirements, of the strategy for the rationalisation of the Defence Estate and of the recommendations of the Lyons review. It has concluded that the Ministry of Defence should re-locate units currently based in Woolwich to sites yet to be decided. This will allow the Woolwich site to be made available for non-defence use. Further work is now needed on implementing this decision. All personnel affected have today been advised of our intention and they and their union representatives will be consulted fully as our plans develop.

Defence Housing Overseas

Ivor Caplin: Last year, the Ministry of Defence carried out a business process review of the management and delivery of defence housing. The review recommended merger between Defence Estates and the Defence Housing Executive, the agency responsible for the management and delivery of defence family housing in Great Britain but not in Northern Ireland or abroad. As Phase 2 of the study, following the above merger, a further review is being undertaken of the management and delivery of family housing for UK forces overseas and in Northern Ireland.
	The aim of the review is to examine the function, role, operation, funding and organisation of defence housing in Northern Ireland and overseas. It will seek to identify the most efficient and effective process to support the management and delivery of defence housing in those areas.
	The review team will consult with a range of stakeholders during the course of the review including single-service customers, trade unions, other Government Departments and other relevant bodies. The Ministry of Defence is interested also to hear the views of other organisations or individuals who would like to make a contribution to the review. Those wishing to do so should send their contribution by 31 August 2004 to:
	Review team for the management and delivery of defence housing overseas:
	Ministry of Defence
	Directorate of Management and Consultancy Services
	Main building
	Whitehall
	SW1A 2HB
	Or by email: pat.rodger614@mod.uk.

Duke of York's Royal Military School

Ivor Caplin: The following Key Targets have been set for the Duke of York's Royal Military School for Financial Year 2004–05:
	To achieve an average GCSE points score per 15 year old pupil of 61.
	To achieve 90 per cent. of 15 year old pupils gaining five or more passes graded A* to C at GCSE.
	To achieve 30 per cent. of GCSE passes at grades A* or A.
	To achieve an average GCE points score per candidate of 268.
	To achieve 35 per cent. of GCE passes at grades A or B.
	To achieve a pupil per capita cost of no more than £13,545.
	To generate income of at least £800,000.
	To achieve at least 310 applications for September 2004 intake.

Armed Forces Pay Review Body

Geoff Hoon: I am pleased to announce that I have re-appointed Dr Anne Wright as a member of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body for a second three-year term, commencing March 2005. This appointment has been conducted in accordance with the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments guidance on appointments to public bodies.

HEALTH

Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency

Rosie Winterton: We have received the annual report and accounts of the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency for 2003–04 which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of sections 5(2) and 5(3) of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921. Copies have also been placed in the Library.

Meat Hygiene Service

Melanie Johnson: The 2003–04 annual report and accounts for the Meat Hygiene Service was laid before Parliament today.
	Copies will be placed in the Library, but formal printing and publication will not take place for another six to nine weeks, pending preparation of a version in the Welsh language, as required by the Welsh Language Act 1993.

Health and Social Care Standards

John Reid: I am publishing today "National Standards, Local Action: Health and Social Care Standards and Planning Framework 2005–06—2007–08", incorporating "Standards for Better Health". This will support the national health service and social care in taking forward the agenda set out in the NHS improvement plan, setting out a framework for continuing quality improvement.
	Much progress has already been made across the NHS. Waiting times are falling, mortality rates for the major diseases are down and there are more NHS staff treating NHS patients. The development of clinical governance, the establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, the publication of National Service Frameworks and the establishment of independent inspectorates for health and for social care have set a framework for safe, high quality care. This is underpinned by "The NHS Improvement Plan" that sets out a programme for further progress and clear improvements in health outcomes and patient care.
	"Standards for Better Health" and "National Standards, Local Action" together set out a new approach that will deliver this agenda, with reduced national targets underpinned by robust standards to drive up quality and safety. NHS patients are entitled to care that is safe and effective and "Standards for Better Health" sets out the standards all providers and commissioners of NHS care are expected to meet to deliver safe and effective care.
	The standards-driven approach set out in these two documents establishes an integrated framework for performance improvement, setting the parameters for
	local plans and targets;
	independent inspection by the Healthcare Commission and CSCI;
	performance assessment and ratings.
	"Standards for Better Health" is published by the Secretary of State for Health under Section 46 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003. "Standards for Better Health" follows a formal consultation on draft proposals in the spring and defines standards covering the full spectrum of health care from public health through to acute care, which have been developed with two principal objectives. First, they include a set of core standards which provide a common set of requirements applying across all health care organisations to ensure that the health services that are provided are both safe and of an acceptable quality.
	Secondly, there is a set of developmental standards providing a framework for continuous improvement in the overall quality of care people receive. Setting developmental standards in this way ensures that the extra resources being directed to the NHS are used to help raise the level of performance measurably year on year.
	"Standards for Better Health" will apply with immediate effect to all health care organisations in England, including NHS foundation trusts. All those providing or commissioning NHS health care in England will have to take them into account when planning or commissioning health care services.
	The Healthcare Commission will measure performance against the standards and progress against national and local targets developed in line with "National Standards, Local Action" into account in its annual reviews and assessments of health care by (and for) each NHS body in England, including NHS Foundation Trusts. By delivering on targets that relate directly to health care standards, NHS bodies will be able to demonstrate to the commission that they are performing well against those standards.
	In "Standards for Better Health", for the first time the Government are setting out a comprehensive statement of the standards NHS bodies and providers of NHS care are expected to meet. "Standards for Better Health" will act as a key driver for quality improvement throughout the NHS, but one aim has been to clarify and to reduce the large number of requirements and standards that have (in the past) been set centrally, either directly from the Department itself or by its arms length bodies. Some of the Department's own standards and requirements are currently under review and the review of arms length bodies will provide an opportunity to change some of the requirements that they currently impose.
	The development of the new high-level standards represents the first step toward simplifying and rationalising the expectations on the service. Taken alongside the reduced requirements in "National Standards, Local Action" this will give organisations greater flexibility for local innovation, underpinned by a strong focus on safe, effective health care and improvements in the outcomes that matter most for patients and service users driving forward the programme set out in the "NHS Improvement Plan".
	Copies of "National Standards, Local Action" have been placed in the Library.

Health Service Bodies

John Hutton: For the health service bodies listed as follows, their annual accounts and any accompanying Comptroller and Auditor General reports have today been laid before the House of Commons pursuant to section 98(1 C) of the National Health Service Act 1977. Copies have been placed in the Library:
	Dental Practice Board
	Dental Vocational Training Authority
	Family Health Services Appeal Authority
	Health Development Agency
	Health Protection Agency
	National Blood Authority
	National Clinical Assessment Authority
	National Institute for Clinical Excellence
	National Patient Safety Agency
	National Treatment Agency
	NHS Appointments Commission
	NHS Information Authority
	NHS Litigation Authority
	NHS Logistics Authority
	NHSU
	Prescription Pricing Authority
	Retained Organs Commission
	UK Transplant

National Health Service Pensions Agency

John Hutton: I have approved the national health service pensions agency annual report and accounts for 2003–04, which have today been laid before the House of Commons in accordance with the requirements of Section 7 of the Government Resources and Accounts Act 2000.
	Copies have been placed in the Library.

Medicines Commission and Medicines Act Advisory Bodies

Rosie Winterton: We have received the annual report of the Medicines Commission and Medicines Act advisory bodies for 2003, which has been laid before Parliament today in accordance with the requirements of section 5(2) of the Medicines Act 1968.
	Bound volumes have been placed in the Library containing the 2003 reports of the Medicines Commission, the committee on Safety of Medicines, the advisory board on the registration of homoeopathic products, the British Pharmacopoeia Commission, the independent review panel on advertising, the independent panel for borderline products and the veterinary products committee.
	We are glad to acknowledge the valuable work done by the distinguished members of the Medicines Act advisory bodies and thank them for the time and effort dedicated in the public interest to this important work.

Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act

Stephen Ladyman: The annual report for 2003 is being published today and copies have been placed in the Library. The report covers research and development work carried out by or on behalf of any Government Department in relation to equipment that might increase the range of activities and independence or well being of disabled people.
	The current report places such research in the context of the national health service improvement plan, and outlines the role of assistive technology in making independent living easier for older people and people with disabilities. The report describes the wide range of Government funded projects supporting the development, introduction and evaluation of assistive technology.

NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency

John Hutton: The NHS purchasing and supply agency's annual report and accounts has been published today and copies have been placed in the Library.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council

Chris Pond: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
	Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The "Performance Standards for housing benefits" allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.
	In 2002–03, Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council administered some £70.8 million in housing benefits, about 19.3 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.
	BFI inspected Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council against the performance standards for housing benefits, and concludes that the council's benefits service had not reached standard in any of the seven functional areas—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud and overpayments.
	The report finds that since 2000 the council had been implementing an ambitious programme of activity that included: implementation of the Verification Framework; implementing new IT systems; a re-organisation of its Revenues and Benefits division; and the establishment of one stop shops and a customer contact centre. Many of the earlier changes were responsible for a considerable backlog of housing benefit claims, attributed to poor management and pointing to a lack of effective planning and organisation.
	The council's benefits service had improved from a "poor" classification in December 2002 to a "fair" classification in December 2003 as part of the comprehensive performance assessment programme. The benefits service had a committed workforce and the report acknowledges the considerable efforts made by Members, senior officers and staff over a sustained period of time.
	The report finds that the council had not documented its approach to benefits administration, had not put in place essential strategic policies, and had insufficient procedural staff guidance which resulted in staff making inconsistent decisions when processing claims. The report notes serious concerns about the lack of management assurance and public accountability provided by the benefits service.
	The council had received "Beacon Council" recognition for its accessible services, providing public access at several one stop shops and handling all incoming telephone calls at its customer contact centre. It had not however reviewed its service against the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and was also not complying with the Race Relations Amendment Act 1976. Physical access issues for customers with disabilities had been considered but their access to services including information needs had not been assessed neither had the needs of customers whose first language was not English. The council's benefit claim form was clear and simple.
	The council had made an impressive effort to clear a backlog of new claims resulting in the council's average number of days to process new claims to housing benefits as being approximately 44 days, compared with the standard of 36 days. However, the council was not consistently applying the standards required for gathering and confirming supporting evidence. Claims processing had taken priority over other work, resulting in a backlog of over 20,000 items of post that was not being managed, contributing to high levels of avoidable overpayments. Sampling showed the average time taken to process changes of circumstances was 58.2 days, compared with the standard of nine days.
	The council was making positive efforts to raise the profile of counter-fraud activity but it needs to improve publicity of its prosecution policy both internally and externally to demonstrate that it takes fraud seriously. The report notes extreme concerns that the prosecution process used by Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council allowed customers to remain under caution for excessive periods of time. Also that the council's prosecution referral process and scoring system that determined appropriate action to be taken and sanction to be applied, undermined the prosecution policy.
	The council's benefit overpayment policies and procedures were of a good standard and fraud overpayments were pursued rigorously and promptly recovered. However, sampling showed that 70 per cent. of benefit overpayments were as a result of the council not promptly processing notified changes of circumstances.
	The on-site phase of the inspection took place in October and November 2003, and the report was cleared on 16 April 2004. The 17-week timeline was not met due to key officers in the council not being available for the clearance of the report.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and further to improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFI's findings and recommendations.

Bristol City Council

Chris Pond: On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Bristol City Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.
	Following the housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All", published in April 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The "Performance Standards for Housing Benefits" allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.
	In 2002–03, Bristol City Council administered some £78.7 million in housing benefits, about 9.7 per cent. of its gross revenue expenditure.
	BFI inspected Bristol City Council against the performance standards for housing benefits, and concludes that the council's benefits service had not reached standard in any of the seven functional areas—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud and overpayments.
	The report finds a high level of commitment by the council to improve its benefit service. During the inspection, the council implemented a number of changes to address issues that were highlighted by BFI.
	In April 2001, having acknowledged that there were problems with the speed and quality of the service it was providing, the council began a programme of fundamental changes in the way it administered housing benefits. Changes included the centralisation and reorganisation of its benefits processing work, and an upgrade to the benefits IT system.
	Despite the changes, delays in processing benefit claims and a significant backlog of work were still evident at the time of the inspection. Customers had to wait an average 74 days to have their new benefit claims processed compared to the standard of 36 days. Verification of supporting evidence for benefit claims was generally conducted to a good standard. However, insufficient and ineffective management checking meant that the council did not have sufficient assurance that the benefits system was secure or that benefit was being paid correctly. Accuracy rates in 2002–03 were reported as 86 per cent., placing the council in the bottom three of all councils.
	Customers experienced problems with the council's benefits service, with almost a third of all calls being abandoned unanswered, and customers being asked to supply evidence to support a claim more than once.
	The report finds that the quality of the council's counter-fraud investigation work was very effective and it was applying the full range of sanctions in line with its policies. All benefit fraud investigations staff were trained to professional standards.
	The council was committed to the recovery of benefit overpayments and had a recovery team within the benefits service. However, many overpayments were caused by the council not processing reported changes of circumstances promptly, and delays in the adjudication of fraud overpayments. The lack of procedural guidance and management checking meant the council had no assurance to the accuracy of overpayments and recovery work.
	The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of housing benefit and council tax benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.
	My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the BFF's findings and recommendations.

Disability Rights Commission

Andrew Smith: The Disability Rights Commission's annual report and accounts 2003–04 have been published today and laid before Parliament. The DRC's annual report of its activities in 2003–04 details considerable success in its work to eliminate discrimination against disabled people; promote equal opportunities; encourage good practice and keep the working of the Disability Discrimination Act and the DRC Act under review.

Remploy

Maria Eagle: Remploy's achievement against its targets set by Government for 2003–04 is in the table.
	
		
			  Target Achievement 
		
		
			 Gross margin—the Company will achieve gross margin of £55 million. £55 million £54.4 million 
			 Progressions from Remploy factories and interwork to open employment 1,650 1,408 
			 Average cost of a supported employee £10,400 £11,095 
			 Employee development time 5 per cent. 7.8 per cent. 
		
	
	Remploy will publish its annual report and accounts in the autumn giving further detail of its performance throughout 2003–04. Copies of the annual report and accounts will be placed in the Library.

Agency Annual Reports and Accounts

Andrew Smith: I am pleased to announce that the Department for Work and Pensions has today published the 2003–04 annual reports and accounts for three of its executive agencies: Jobcentre Plus (HC 909), The Pension Service (HC 722) and Appeals Service (HC785). Copies have been placed in the Library.

SCOTLAND

Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems

Alistair Darling: Following my announcement on the setting up of the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems, Official Report, 9 February 2004, Column 1150–51, I can now announce the members of the commission. These are as follows: Professor Sir John Arbuthnott Chairman of the Greater Glasgow NHS Board and Former Principal and Vice Chancellor of the University of Strathclyde Mr. Adam Bruce Director, McGrigors Public Policy, Edinburgh Professor Mike Donnelly Professor of Management, University of Paisley Mr. Donal Dowds Divisional Managing Director, BAA Scotland and USA Mr. John Keggie Self-employed businessman. Former Deputy General Secretary, CWU Postal Mr. John Lawrie, OBE Former investment manager. Former Chairman, Scottish Liberal Party Councillor Alison Magee Convenor, Highland Council Mr. John Mc Cormick Former Controller, BBC Scotland Dr. Nicola Mc Ewen Lecturer in politics, University of Edinburgh Ms Mary Pitcaithly Chief Executive and Returning Officer, Falkirk Council Mr. Mike Russell Freelance journalist and broadcaster. Former MSP for South Scotland
	The Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments was fully involved in the process of appointment.
	The commission will start its work very shortly and is expected to report to me and the First Minister in about 18 months.

TRANSPORT

Night Flying Restrictions

Tony McNulty: I announced on 15 January 2004, Official Report, columns 44–46WS that, following consultation last year, we had decided to continue the present night restrictions regime at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted until the end of the summer season 2005 (30 October 2005). This was to allow us time to consider comments received in response to the question about the appropriate review cycle in the consultation paper "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East", and the wider policy context, before we consult on a new night restrictions regime for those airports, to take effect from 30 October 2005.
	We intend to carry out the consultation on the new regime in two stages: we are publishing the consultation paper on stage one today. The consultation paper is rather different from previous consultations on night restrictions for Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted. The paper sets out the general background to the whole of the consultation and our intention that the next regime should apply for six years, to the end of the summer season 2011. By that time the 5th Terminal at Heathrow will have been in operation for about three years and the opening date for a 2nd runway at Stansted (if planning permission is granted) should be known.
	The consultation paper also includes:
	a statement of our broad aims for the night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and an invitation to suggest environmental objectives and specific noise abatement objectives for each of those airports;
	detailed proposals relating to the classification of aircraft, the main focus of this first stage of the consultation,
	further background information and extended preliminary consultation on some other aspects of the night restrictions regime; and
	an explanation of how and when we shall carry out assessments to comply with Directive 2002/30 of the European Parliament and of the Council (implemented into UK law by The Aerodromes (Noise Restrictions) (Rules and Procedures) Regulations 2003—SI No.1742 of 2003) and also a Regulatory Impact Assessment.
	The issues relating to the way aircraft are classified for night restrictions purposes need to be resolved in stage one so that the effects of different options for the length of the night quota period, the size of the noise quotas and movement limits and the ratios between them, can each be assessed properly in stage two.
	At present, aircraft are classified according to the Quota Count (QC) system that was specially designed for the night restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted and introduced in 1993. The QC classification system is based on aircraft noise certification data (determined in accordance with the requirements of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO), and we propose to retain it.
	The consultation paper on the one year extension to present restrictions referred to the findings of a technical review 1 which used data collected in normal operating circumstances to verify the QC classification of aircraft types. The results show that most aircraft currently operating at night at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted have operational noise levels that accord with their present classification. To the extent that the study highlights differences between observed operational noise and ICAO standards, the differences have been brought to the attention of the international technical
	1 Quota Count Validation Study: Noise Measurement and Analysis: ERCD Report 0205.
	experts currently examining ICAO noise certification requirements. We believe in and support the international system of noise certification. We are pressing for the certification requirements to be updated, to reflect modern operating procedures and conditions, and to be made more rigorous.
	Article 4(4) of Directive 2002–30 and Regulation 5(3) of SI No. 1742 preclude the use of any system of noise classification other than that based on ICAO noise certification data. It follows that, although the UK (and other Member States) may choose how to use ICAO data in imposing operating restrictions, it has no discretion to substitute measurements of operational noise as an alternative to the noise certification data. That would have the effect of decoupling the classification of the aircraft concerned from their noise certification data. We are, therefore, not consulting on this issue.
	If we retain the QC system it is still possible to modify or extend it provided the classification remains based on noise certification data. Changes arising from earlier commitments and technical studies that we are considering taking forward are:
	whether to remove the weight limit on jet aircraft able to qualify as exempt but, at the same time, to introduce a new QC/0.25 band;
	whether to retain the minus 9 EPNdB adjustment for arrivals which takes account of the difference between the noise impacts of arrivals and departures;
	whether to prohibit QC/4 aircraft from being scheduled or from operating in the present night quota period.
	These are the key issues for this first stage of the consultation. They are explained in more detail in section 7 of the consultation paper.
	The consultation paper also contains information to meet the new regulatory requirements established by Directive 2002/30/EC and SI 2003 No 1742, including data that will be used in stage two as the basis against which to compare the effects of proposed changes to the night restrictions regime. The data will also feed into the draft Regulatory Impact Assessment that we shall provide at stage two. All consultees are invited to include in their responses to this first stage of the consultation any data that they wish to have taken into account when we produce those draft assessments for stage two.
	The consultation will close on 29 October. Copies of the consultation paper are available in the House Library. All responses will be taken into account and reflected as appropriate in the stage 2 consultation paper and related assessments.

TREASURY

National Statistics

Ruth Kelly: The National Statistics annual report has been published today. A number of copies of the report have been placed in both Libraries of the House. The report can also be obtained free of charge on the National Statistics website at: www.statistics.gov.uk/about/national–statistics/documentation.asp.

Office for National Statistics

Ruth Kelly: The Office for National Statistics annual report and accounts for 2003–04 are being laid before Parliament today. They contain an assessment of how the Office for National Statistics performed against its key targets in 2003–04. Electronic copies are freely available on the National Statistics website and a number of copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Spending Review (Regional Priorities)

John Healey: "2004 Spending Review: Meeting Regional Priorities", is being published today and copies are available in the Libraries of the House.
	This document meets the Treasury's commitment to set out how the 2004 Spending Review, announced to Parliament on 12 July 2004, responds to the issues and priorities identified in the regional emphasis documents jointly prepared by the Government office, regional development agency and regional chamber in each English region.
	The document reaffirms the Government's commitment to improving regional economic performance. It summarises the next steps the Government is taking to ensure that the evidence base supports the Government's regional policy agenda, and sets out the SR04 response to input from the regions as well as plans for devolving further resources and responsibilities in every region.